Kinky sex

As I have made clear in earlier posts (Thongs, Las Vegas, Tits, Negs, The Stalag, Britney, Josef Fritzl, Hot Cars, GGW, Juntas) d-bags loooooove kinky sex. To enjoy sex in itself is not unusual, as most of God’s creatures find pleasure in copulation. As the old song goes, “birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it.” Human beings, moreover, being more complex than fleas, bees, or even birds, have a more complex relationship with this most natural of acts, and that again is no cause for surprise or alarm. It is not remarkable that men and women feel love, anger, shame or even fear when engaging in sex, and that those feelings can heighten the pleasure — the thrill — of sex. It is also not remarkable that human beings, whose tastes are so varied in food, fashion, religious experience, etc., would have equally varied tastes in what pushes their erotic buttons. Pure empirical analysis of human culture and history make plain that there is nothing unusual (which is not to say taboo, immoral or wrong) with every conceivable kink from homosexuality to monk-like, self-flagellatory abstemiousness. Kinky sex makes the world go round.

For a d-bag kinky sex has a special significance. D-bags like to take the principle “I deserve it” to absurd lengths. They feel it releases them from the duty to act toward others as they would have others act towards them. Josef Fritzl is a paradigmatic example of this form of d-baggery. Not all d-bags have the inspiration or ability to lock their daughters in a dungeon and rape them for thirty years — but that is not to say Fritzl was unique! The Marc Dutroux affair in Belgium demonstrates that this extreme perversion is possibly wide spread, and perhaps even institutionalized by syndicated crime organizations. Nor is this unique to the modern age. The Marquis de Sade wrote in the 1700s in his fictional novel 120 Days of Sodom about a group of four powerful men who kidnap children (including their own daughters) and imprison them in a remote mountain castle where they ritually rape and eventually murder them. The men represent the four types of power in France in the eighteenth century: one is a duke (government), one is a judge (law), one is a banker (business), and one is a bishop (religion), but their types are clear and obvious to us today. One needs only think of Mark Foley and Ted Haggard to see that power secular and spiritual is still human and corruptible, and Sade’s point was that it is easier for the very powerful to commit crimes than for the poor and weak who are usually its victims.

As horrifying as these crimes are, they are not the end of the d-bag’s enjoyment of kinky sex. Though it may seem contrary to common sense, d-bags take this sort of sexual perversion even farther by reveling in the hypocrisy of denouncing others as sexual perverts. The true essence of “I deserve it” cannot be appreciated unless you can self-righteously punish someone else for your own crimes. Take TV talking head Bill O’Reilley for example. O’Reilley obviously gets inordinate pleasure of the kind normally associated with sexual perversion from publicly humiliating people on his show. It is a perfectly Sadean setup that allows O’Reilley to get his jollies by publicly calling into question the sexuality of his guests. O’Reilley controls the medium: he can cut off his interlocutors whenever he feels like it, call his guests perverts and sissies, and he always has the last word. His guests are merely passive faces who must suffer through his lascivious rants and insults until he excuses them to perdition, and they have no recourse to turn the megaphone around. Though it has never been proven that O’Reilley has committed pederasty, incest or rape, his show is a symbolic rape of of the powerless and shows O’Reilley is a d-bag who thinks he is above reproach. (Remember that O’Reilley has been accused of sexual harassment, and his accuser claimed that O’Reilly subjected her to repeated instances of open and explicit talk about phone sex, vibrators, threesomes, masturbation, the loss of his virginity, and sexual fantasies. The same principle is at work when convicted drug addict Rush Limbaugh rants against drug users.) The ultimate sexual perversion for these lords of d-baggery is to publicly accuse others of crimes they feel they can commit with impunity.

Is it any wonder that our media is saturated with hysteria over pedophilia and sex crimes when those who own and operate the media are themselves perverts? In three separate news items today, the 19th of May, 2008 Americans have been told that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that would make the mere insinuation of pedophilia a crime, that a 6-year-old son of polygamist sect leader Warren Jeffs did not suffer physical or sexual abuse while living with his mother at the group’s Texas ranch (why is this news?), and that Amanda McNamee of Dickinson, N.D (pictured above) is watching over us (or rather, is watching over sex offenders) to protect us from perversion. The ambiguity of her stare from the New York Times web site is no accident either. As we surf through salacious stories of polygamist sects and lenient judges, drooling over secret details of a crime that O’Reilley mentions are unmentionable, we are told by her stare that “justice” sees guilty and innocent indiscriminantly, promiscuously mixed, that we are all already guilty, and that unless we join the shrill chorus of accusers, we will be a member of the accused.

In the end, d-bag philosophy asserts that there is no uninterested party. Either you are vehemently, outrageously, hysterically against the pedophiles — or you are one.

Advertisements